By Ray McGovern, August 4, 2020
Two years ago today in Seattle I made a presentation titled: “Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?” ( See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngIKjpucQh8 )
I stuck to the facts available at the time (copious facts, but many of the key ones suppressed in corporate media). It turned out that, as far as I could tell, most of the very progressive audience did not seem able to “handle the truth” very well. Most, it became obvious, were malnourished on the facts, and some of the most telling facts I cited were completely new to them. So I found myself behind the 8 ball from the outset.
My remarks were far from polished rhetoric; rather they were relaxed, discursive. They did cover a lot of ground, though, on some issues that were virgin territory for many there. What I might have added at that time (August 2018) was a tad more speculation on why it was taking Robert Mueller so long to complete his investigation. Mueller was no doubt aware of the concern Peter Strzok expressed in late July 2016 regarding evidence of Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that “there is no big there there”. So what took Mueller to long to confirm that?
In retrospect, I might have pointed to the impending mid-term election in November, noting that, if the dark cloud of suspicion had been lifted before the election, the Democrats would have had much more difficulty winning control of the House.
Everyone important — including, of course, Mueller — knew that Mueller’s bevy of lawyers were fighting Mission Impossible in their quest for evidence of collusion. We hoi polloi, however, had no clue that the principal policymakers, law enforcement, and intelligence chiefs had already admitted under oath, in secret testimony to the House Intelligence Committee at the end of 2017, that they, too, saw “no there there”. That testimony was not released until May 7, 2020. The “mainstream media” is still avoiding it like the plague — or Covid-19.
There is some comfort in the fact that the Seattle speech has gotten 223,800 views so far on YouTube — just a few thousand short of those given my May 4, 2006 mini-debate with then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw ). There is more comfort still in the fact that what I laid out for the audience two years ago seems today not far off the mark. And, despite old friends and erstwhile colleagues calling me an “adulator of Vladimir Putin”, I can still look in the mirror without worrying about what I will see there.
August 2018 to August 2020
What about the last two years? Let me offer two items for consideration; the second may surprise you:
1 — Our Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) Memo yesterday to Speaker Pelosi, which includes links to other pieces that document what has been going on: ( See: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/03/vips-memo-to-nancy-pelosi-did-russia-hack-the-dnc-emails/ .)
2 — The text of Jim Jordan’s (R, Ohio) introductory remarks at the hearing on July 28 at which Attorney General William Barr testified: (See: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/house-judiciary-committee-hearing-of-attorney-general-barr-transcript-july-28 ).
Suggestion: To avoid the temptation to overreact to Jordan’s theatrics (and to counter any bias against his politics), it may be helpful to read the transcript (the link is immediately above), rather than watch the performance. Then ask yourself if any of what he says is demonstrably false. There is a rather widespread inclination to avoid giving credence, prima facie, to evidence that seems to support what our super-prevaricator president may also say. It may be hard to remember, but not everything Donald Trump and his supporters say is ipso facto false.
I urge readers to try to shed all partisanship, take an objective look at Jordan’s statement, and identify those of his assertions that require correction. Might we have some volunteers to fact check?